Bostik India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal9 October 2015

CitationAppeal No. 275-2012-CE dated 26/09/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALOR

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal holds that where both parties agree that an issue is covered by specified decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, the question may be decided by following those decisions, without independent examination of the merits, and the impugned order may be set aside on that footing.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCHBANGALOREAppeal(s) Involved:E/25062/2013-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 275-2012-CE dated 26/09/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Bostik India Pvt Ltd 124/1&124/2a, Kachanayakanahalli Off Hosur Road, Hennagara Post, Bangalore-562106 BANGALORE - 562106 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri B.VENUGOPAL, ADV VENU ASSOCIATES, ADVS, #82, 3RD FLOOR, S.T.BED, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE -560 027 For the Appellant

Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 09/10/2015

Date of Decision: 09/10/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 22033 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The dispute relates to availability of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on medical insurance, housekeeping, courier service and pest control service availed by the assessee.

2. Both sides agree that the issue stands decided by the following decisions:

a. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2010(19) STR 93 (Tri. Bang.)] b. CCE&Cus, Guntur Vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. [2010(18) str 500 (Tri. Bang.)] c. CCE, Chennai Vs. Rotork Control (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2010(20) STR 29 (Tri. Chennai)] d. Balakrishna Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2010(18) STR 600 (Tri. Mum.)] e. CCE&ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Micro Labs Ltd. [2011(270) ELT 156 (Kar.)] f. CCE, Bangalore-III Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011(23) STR 444 (Kar.)]

3. As such by following the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja..

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free